[SOLVED] Naming convention for ISO Respin File Name?

[Member techore]

Is their an ISO file name convention for antiX respins?

In the absence of one, what is your opinion on antiX-22-dwm-runit_x64-core.iso?

and.. just had a thought. If I need to publish another release due to a major bug/snafu, ideas on how to distinguish minor releases? Maybe go to a 22.1, 22.2, and so forth or rel1, rel2, .. or ver1, ver2, .. my brain hurts. 🙂

• This topic was modified 5 months, 2 weeks ago by techore.
• This topic was modified 5 months, 2 weeks ago by techore.

[Member sybok]

Helpful

Up

1

::

Hi, I do not produce respins and I am not aware of any naming convention.
The one ‘antiX’ seems to follow (based on exploring the available downloads for antiX-22) is
antix-{release year YY}[.{minor release}][-{init}][-sid]_{architecture}-{base,core,full,net}.iso
with the items enclosed in square brackets being optional and not always present.
Personally, I typically prefer appending rather then prepending, i.e. antiX-22-runit-dwm_x64-core.iso appeals to me more.

Reason: Appending may be easier to deal with when parsing the names using scripts. You simply throw away any additional information. Prepending might cause more work to do.
Anyway, there would be a potential conflict ‘dwm’ vs. ‘sid’ which meaning that no way is 100% safe.

PS: Damn you, nasty word-press plugin safety precaution blocking my post due to the antiX’s naming convention.

• This reply was modified 5 months, 2 weeks ago by sybok.

[Member Robin]

Helpful

Up

1

::

I also don’t have any knowledge about naming conventions, but just a remark: If I see something like your proposed antiX-22-dwm-runit_x64-core.iso, I’d consider it being an official antiX release of some kind. It contains the name antiX, and moreover the naming follows the pattern antiX uses for its official releases. So nobody would probably guess, this is a respin rather than official antiX ISO, which might easily produce some confusion later. I believe your respin needs to be distinguishable from official antiX ISOs and releases clearly. Best in my opinion would be to modify the word antiX in any derived work, and since your nick starts with letter “t”, what about tantix-{release year YY}[.{minor release}][-{init}][-sid]_{architecture}-{base,core,full,net}.iso, ? Or maybe something like not-antix-{release year YY}[.{minor release}][-{init}][-sid]_{architecture}-{base,core,full,net}.iso following the great naming tradition of GNU-not-unix.
But as sybok, I’m not doing any respins nor have ever done, so my proposals are pure guesswork. I’d only suggest you’d just make sure in some way your work won’t get mixed up with true antiX by users.

Btw:

sybok wrote:

Appending may be easier to deal with when parsing the names using scripts. You simply throw away any additional information. Prepending might cause more work to do.

I don’t see this difference. You could simply apply bash parametric expansion for this:
${parameter:offset:length}
E.g. s=”${r:5:-10}” will remove first 5 and last 10 letters from the string stored in variable “$r“. See man bash, section about “Expansion” (starting somewhere around line 927), for some more details how to apply.

Windows is like a submarine. Open a window and serious problems will start.

[Member sybok]

Helpful

Up

0

::

@Robin: Good point about ‘tantiX’ (could be further modified to ‘taintiX’ 🙂 ).

Thanks for the tip about the BASH expansion.

Regarding potential parsing scripts, it will depend on their construction.
E.g. using Python str.split(‘_’)[0].split(‘-‘) and using fixed positions (in the resulting list of strings) from the end ‘-<positive integer>’ or from the beginning ‘+<positive integer>’.

[Member olsztyn]

Helpful

Up

0

::

sybok wrote:

@Robin: Good point about ‘tantiX’ (could be further modified to ‘taintiX’ ).

With my disclaimer that I do not have any preference as to naming convention for antiX respins I see this conversation seems to contribute to a general naming convention to be adopted for future antiX respins. Possibly, and I hope, there will be many such…
Following suggested by Robin convention I see as respins:
– tantiX – respin by @techore
– lantiX – respin by Andy (who is strongly promoting LXDE version of antiX but not sure if he plans to actually and officially announce one such for general availability)
– dantiX – indicating DWM desktop?
From the past discussions, where there were discussions in this forum about releasing antiX with a full desktop environment and MATE was one of such candidates as desktops for antiX (I remember anticapitalista favored MATE, but there were other candidates.
I think anticapitalista might have his preference (and perhaps might establish a naming convention rule for antiX respins), however I think we should remember the Greek origin of antiX (headquarters of antiX are in Thessaloniki, Greece) and the meaning of the word ‘antiX’, which meaning has been discussed many times with only interpretations or conjectures, which might shed some light on how subsequent naming convention for respins should be derived, but ultimately it could end up in the anticapitalista’s court to decide…
Taking the Greek origin of antiX I would just mention that ‘antiX’ written in Greek language is ‘αντιΞ’, which by the rule of Greek pronunciation should be in general pronounced ‘adiks’ as Greek ‘ντ’ should be pronounced as ‘d’, generally speaking. But it is up to anticapitalista how ‘antiX’ should be pronounced. So ultimately I would leave it up to anticapitalista to decide how he wants antiX respins to be named if he wants to. Much groundwork has been prepared by Robin and Sybok in this discussion for that…

• This reply was modified 5 months, 2 weeks ago by olsztyn.

Live antiX Boot Options (Previously posted by Xecure):
https://antixlinuxfan.miraheze.org/wiki/Table_of_antiX_Boot_Parameters

[Member PPC]

Helpful

Up

1

::

Lol.

I loved the “taintiX” idea. Hey, if someone creates a respin of antiX with FT10 preinstalled, will it be called “FaintX”? Now that would be a cool name! 🙂

More seriouly – I do like the idea to append the change to the end of the iso – ex: DWM to the name of the file (before the arch, I mean).

P.

[Member techore]

Helpful

Up

0

::

sybok wrote:

@Robin: Good point about ‘tantiX’ (could be further modified to ‘taintiX’ 🙂 ).

Funny but no. haha. 🙂

My emotional response to change “antix” to something like tantix and dantix feels like I am detracting from antiX and it’s contributors. Even if it is not true, it is how I feel. I want to establish clearly that the ISO is antix (and core). It’s not bad idea and there is precedence with Ubuntu, Kubutu, Lubuntu, and Xubuntu.

On the concern that I establish it as a respin. I can see some person coming to forum with unreasonable expectations if they believed it to be an official release. My intent was to plaster “Respin” on gitlab and archive.org to reduce any confusion. I may need to rethink on adding it to the ISO file name, but my initial reaction, before, was no. Why? Hm.. I may need to psycho analyze myself. Not a good sign. 😀

Good feedback. Keep sharing if you have other thoughts. I am at least two weeks away from publishing.

• This reply was modified 5 months, 2 weeks ago by techore.
• This reply was modified 5 months, 2 weeks ago by techore.

[Forum Admin anticapitalista]

Helpful

Up

1

::

Here’s my take.

Since it is not an official antiX release, I would prefer the iso name to reflect this in some way.
That doesn’t mean you have to remove the word ‘antiX’. but make it clear it is an unofficial spin.
Something like antiX-dwm-respin would be ok
antiX-dwm-spin – ok
antiX-dwm-unofficicial – ok

Another thing – since your iso will include Xorg, I would not use the word ‘core’ only because ‘core’ in antiX does not include an X (graphical) environment.

Good luck.

Philosophers have interpreted the world in many ways; the point is to change it.

antiX with runit - leaner and meaner.

[Member techore]

Helpful

Up

0

::

PPC wrote:

More seriouly – I do like the idea to append the change to the end of the iso – ex: DWM to the name of the file (before the arch, I mean).

If I am understanding you, you prefer antiX-22-runit-dwm_x64-core.iso over my original name as suggested by sybok.

Okay. Thank you!

[Member techore]

Helpful

Up

0

::

anticapitalista wrote:

Something like antiX-dwm-respin would be ok. antiX-dwm-spin – ok. antiX-dwm-unofficicial – ok

@anticapitalista

antiX-dwm-spin (short) or antiX-dwm-unofficial (clearer) both work. I’ll pick one.

I have a concern in removing core. Yes, it has xorg with no display manager but it uses the cli-installer not the gui installer that comes with base and full.

Perhaps it is wrong for me to associate core with the cli-installer?

or..

I could add the gui installer which never occurred to me. Hm.. package name?

[Forum Admin anticapitalista]

Helpful

Up

1

::

The package name for the gui installer is antix-installer

Philosophers have interpreted the world in many ways; the point is to change it.

antiX with runit - leaner and meaner.

[Member techore]

Helpful

Up

0

::

Thank you all for your help.

At this point, I have:

antiX-22-dwm-unofficial-runit_x64.iso

Still open to feedback but that where the ISO dwm spin name stands at this point.

[Forum Admin anticapitalista]

Helpful

Up

0

::

It’s up to you really.
Do you want to emphasize that it is dwm or runit?

Other options based on your last post

antiX-22-runit-dwm-unofficial_x64.iso

antiX-22-dwm-runit-unofficial_x64.iso

antiX-22-unofficial-dwm-runit_x64.iso

antiX-22-unofficial-runit-dwm_x64.iso

Hope this helps

Philosophers have interpreted the world in many ways; the point is to change it.

antiX with runit - leaner and meaner.

[Member techore]

Helpful

Up

1

::

@anticapitalista, it does help and thank you!

All those will work, so I just need to pick one. I’ll sleep on it but I am predisposed to sticking as closely to your existing naming convention for the official releases.

antiX-22-runit-dwm-unofficial_x64.iso

It, also, falls inline with @sybok suggestion.

@all, all the suggestions have merit and thank you for helping me.

[Author]

Posts